Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal

Evolution of retracted publications in the medical sciences: Citations analysis, bibliometrics, and altmetrics trends

We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus (n = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact.

The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct

Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.